Tuesday, September 3, 2013

GOP leaders should follow the Palin Doctrine-Let Allah sort out Syria's Islamic civil war



The following piece was written by David Horowitz in RedState.com I find it extremely interesting how he is arguing in favor of Sarah Palin’s position of not getting mixed up in the Syrian civil war.   

The below is a pull quote from Horowitz that boils down what the U.S. is actually doing if it gets involved in Syria. 


“Most mainstream conservatives are not Ron Paul libertarians who don’t support any war on terror. Quite the contrary, we support a robust intervention to repel Islamic terrorism when it threatens our interests. But in the case of Libya, Syria, and Egypt, we are actually intervening on behalf of our enemies.”

Fox News reports as bankrupt as elected Republican leadership is in Washington vis-à-vis domestic policy, they are completely clueless as it relates to foreign policy.  
While America continues to become an economic and moral wasteland under this regime, Obama is attempting to spend American treasure helping one nefarious side of an Islamic civil war in Syria – one which involves Iran-allied supporters of Hezbollah (Assad regime) vs. predominantly Al Qaeda affiliated rebels.

Astoundingly, most GOP leaders are either siding with Obama or are totally insouciant to this reckless fomenting of an Islamic insurrection. Instead of fighting ObamaCare, they are allowing Obama to distract from the upheaval at home by focusing on this inane escapade in Syria.

Most media figures discuss the current foreign policy debate in broad platitudes pitting so-called neo-conservatives vs. libertarians, hawks vs. doves, or interventionists vs. isolationists.  But these labels are non-sequiturs to the reality of the current debate.  
Most mainstream conservatives are not Ron Paul libertarians who don’t support any war on terror. Quite the contrary, we support a robust intervention to repel Islamic terrorism when it threatens our interests. But in the case of Libya, Syria, and Egypt, we are actually intervening on behalf of our enemies.

Granted, Syria is more complicated than the other two examples.  Bashar Assad is a sworn enemy of the United States, the closest ally of Iran, and a prolific exporter of terror.  

In a perfect world, it would be great to overthrow him and stick it to Iran (and their Russian allies).  But the reality is that the strongest elements of the insurgency are saturated with Al Qaeda affiliated extremists, backed by Pan-Islamist Turkish President Recep Erdogen, much like the insurgencies in other countries. 

Why place American money and weapons in the hands of people who will be just as adversarial to our interests as the current regime? This is not a matter of opposing intervention for the sake of isolationism; it is a matter of not supporting intervention that is either superfluous or deleterious to our national interests. 

A “hawkish” stance towards Assad is a dovish stance towards Al Qaeda. As Sarah Palin noted, in a battle with Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah on one side and Al-Qaeda and Turkey on the other, let Allah sort it out.
This should be a slam dunk opportunity for GOP leaders to oppose a wrongheaded and unpopular intervention, while shifting the focus back to the ObamaCare civil war at home.  

More here


Why are we helping Al Qaeda by bombing Syria?  That question is not being asked and I sure would like to hear answer.

No comments: